To the Editor: Many (most) media coverage of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal's decision on the Marriage Commissioner Reference case are getting it wrong. The Court of Appeal did NOT state that Saskatchewan's religious marriage commissioners could not be accommodated, that accommodation of marriage commissioners is unlawful and constitutionally prohibited. That is not what the Court said.
Let's keep this in perspective. The Court said that this particular, specific piece of legislation (Schedule A and Schedule B) submitted to the Court for review is unconstitutional. And keep in mind that Schedule B (the "Comprehensive Option") is only one sentence (29 words) - it does not provide enough detail and was not diligently and / or thoroughly drafted. The Court only said that Schedules A and B did not work - that is all. It did not say that no proposed legislation (one with more detail, one better drafted and more comprehensive) would work.
Further, Justice Richards, the writer of the lead decision, explicitly stated that "there might be a different way of accommodating the religious beliefs of marriage commissioners than the one reflected in the Grandfathering Option (Schedule A) and the Comprehensive Option (Schedule B)... (a system where) the religious beliefs of individual commissioiners could be accommodated... (and where) no couple would be denied services..." (para. 85). In fact Justices Richards and Ottenbreit and Chief Justice Klebuc suggest a "single entry point system" that might just work, that would accommodate the marriage commissioner and still ensure the same-sex couple would get their marriage.
There is certainly a way to accommodate Saskatchewan marriage commissioners of faith (and still ensure same-sex marriages are readily available to those who request them). The Court of Appeal has identified the system. Let's move on. Accommodation satisfies (or should satisfy) both sides - people of faith and the homosexual community. This really is a no-brainer. If it is possible to respect the rights of both sides, why wouldn't we do that? This is a unique situation where there is an easy solution.
The Court - at least the Richards' majority - was very supportive of the marriage commissioners' right to freedom of religion. The Richards' trioka was very open to accommodating the marriage commissioners, if only there was an acceptable, well thought out way to do so. There is such a way - it just wasn't Schedule A and B. These two Schedules should have been better drafted. The Government did not consult before providing these Schedules to the Court. Be clear - accommodation of marriage commissioners is the right thing to do - and it is the proper and the lawful thing to do (see the Trinity Western University decision from the Supreme Court of Canada).
There is not just one side here - there is two sides to this issue. The solution is not as simple as simply throwing the marriage commissioners "under the bus" and satisfying the homosexual community. And what happened to Orville Nichols should never, ever be repeated. What happened to Orville Nichols was disgraceful - to embarrass and shame and demean and then Fine Mr. Nichols for simply indicating that he wished to decline to perform a same-sex ceremony (and he set up another individual who would) is just pathetic. Shame on all of us for letting this happen. That is not the Saskatchewan way - that is not the way we treat people in Saskatchewan - it was so wrong. (Hint - Orville Nichols was set up, targeted, mercilessly made an example of.)
We cannot afford to drive out good, fine, qualified, outstanding people like Orville Nichols from our public service. (Which is what non-accommodation does.) We need people like Orville Nichols in our public life - and others like him, from all walks of life. Let's do the right thing here. To not accommodate marriage commissioners will lead to more Orville Nichols Situations. It actively prefers one side to the other - one right over the other, equality over freedom of religion. The government of Saskatchewan needs to find a way to accommodate our marriage commissioners of faith. It is there - it is possible. The solution to this dilemma is not to pick one side, at the expense of the other. If there is a way to satisfy, to accommodate both sides, then let's do it. Let's move on.
Yesterday's decision is just one view, one voice, albeit an important one. The ball is back in the court of the Wall Government. It is our elected MLAs who make the laws. It is open to them to accommodate marriage commissioners. The Premier does want to accommodate the marriage commissioners, if there is a solid way to do so. The vast majority of the governing caucus wishes to accomodate if possible. Well, it is possible (it just isn't Schedule A and B). Please tell your MLA "No more Beat Up Orville Nichols Situations" - accommodate the marriage commissioners - take the side of freedom - do not throw the marriage commisioners under the bus.
Dale N. Blenner - Hassett, Prince Albert, SK.
